Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Almost 30 years after Emschwiller prepared IZnCH 2 I, Simmons and Smith discovered that the reagent formed by mixing a zinc‐copper couple with CH 2 I 2 in ether could be used for the stereospecific conversion of alkenes to cyclopropanes. Nowadays, the Simmons‐Smith cyclopropanation reaction is one of the most widely used reactions in the organic chemist's arsenal for the conversion of olefins into cyclopropanes. This popularity is mainly due to the stereospecificity of the reaction with respect to the double bond geometry and its compatibility with a wide range of functional groups. The chemoselectivity of the reaction toward some olefins is excellent and very few side reactions are observed with functionalized substrates. The metal carbenoid is electrophilic in nature and electron‐rich alkenes usually react much faster than electron‐poor alkenes. Furthermore, the ability to use proximal hydroxy or ether groups to dictate the stereochemical outcome of the CC bond forming process was recognized early on, and this unique property has been successfully exploited on numerous occasions. It has been recognized that halomethylmetal reagents are powerful synthetic tools for the stereoselective addition of a methylene unit to chiral acyclic allylic alcohols and allylic ethers. In addition, the use of halomethylzinc reagents in the presence of chiral additives is one of the few ways to cyclopropanate allylic alcohols efficiently and with good enantiocontrol. Carbenoids can be divided into the following two classes: (1) those of general structure MCH 2 X and (2) those corresponding to M = CH 2 . This chapter is focussed exclusively on the first class in which M = Zn, Sm, or Al. Although other metal carbenoids of type MCH 2 X, such as those derived from Cu, Cd, Hg, and In, have been reported to be effective reagents for the cyclopropanation of some olefins, they have been used only sporadically, and this review does not highlight these reactions. This chapter covers cyclopropanation reactions involving haloalkylzinc, aluminum, and samarium reagents published since the comprehensive chapter in Organic Reactions by Simmons that surveyed the literature up to 1973.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".